If my will is free then I can decide not to keep the money, and I don't take it. What happens then?
Last edited:
Merged The Qur'an corrects the mistakes of the false Injil/Torah
- Thread starter Emre_1974tr
- Start date
- Status
If my will is free then I can decide not to keep the money, and I don't take it. What happens then?
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
God knows what you are going to do.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
But even if that were not an obvious case of predestination voiding free will (which it absolutely is) that isn't what Islam says Emre. Islam states that god dictated what you would do in advance.
At the moment I find the money...
1. If I have free will then I can decide to keep the money.
2. If I have free will then I can decide to turn in the money.
3. That's what having free will means. If either of the above is not true, then I don't have free will.
4. Now, you say God already knows what I will do.
Let's say God knows I will keep the money. This results in a contradiction. If I can decide to turn in the money, then God does not know what I will do. If I cannot, I don't have free will.
The same contradiction occurs if God knows I will turn in the money. If I can decide to keep the money, then God does not know what I will do. If I cannot, I don't have free will.
If you disagree, please specify by number 1-4 which of the premises you disagree with.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Volition is not about what God knows. It's about what a human is allowed to do, how, and why.
Allah is not God... he is a hideous devil or djinn at most... stop calling your imaginary Genie "God".... it is obvious he is not.
And it has now become extremely evident that you are trolling...
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
So in Myriad's scenario, he doesn't have free will then.
Let me refine my terms even a bit farther, to address the problem with any "you can but you won't" argument.
1. To assert that an event X can happen under circumstances (Y1, Y2, Y3...) implies that it is valid to consider, as a hypothesis, that event X does happen under those circumstances, and address the implications of that hypothesis.
2. To dismiss a hypothesis such as that described in (1) as unreasonable or impossible is a direct contradiction of the original assertion that X can happen under circumstances Y.
3. We take as premises that certain circumstances occur: that I find money as previously described in the scenario, and that God knows I will keep the money.
4. I have free will.
5. Because of 4, I can decide to turn in the money.
6. By premises 1 and 5, we now take as a reasonable hypothesis that I do turn in the money. What ensues in that scenario? What can be concluded from it?
1. To assert that an event X can happen under circumstances (Y1, Y2, Y3...) implies that it is valid to consider, as a hypothesis, that event X does happen under those circumstances, and address the implications of that hypothesis.
2. To dismiss a hypothesis such as that described in (1) as unreasonable or impossible is a direct contradiction of the original assertion that X can happen under circumstances Y.
3. We take as premises that certain circumstances occur: that I find money as previously described in the scenario, and that God knows I will keep the money.
4. I have free will.
5. Because of 4, I can decide to turn in the money.
6. By premises 1 and 5, we now take as a reasonable hypothesis that I do turn in the money. What ensues in that scenario? What can be concluded from it?
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And that is the philosophical reality of Islamic predestinarianism. They simply redefine "free will" to mean that individuals experience linear time and therefore aren't aware of their fate. Therefore they believe they are making decisions and therefore have the mens rea to be punished for evil. But no individual has the power to change the outcome that Allah has predetermined for him, so it's not volition.
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
You can do what you want with your free will. You are completely free. That's the purpose of life on earth, it allows you to face yourself.
You can keep the money or you can give it away. Whatever you are going to decide here, whatever you are going to do at the end, God knows that.
What God knows is what you are going to do. You will not choose to keep the money and you will not choose to give it at the same time. You will choose one or the other. And that is what is known, that is the choice you will make. You cannot say that if I do the opposite it will be a paradox, because what you are going to do is what is known.
You are free to choose what you want. You will choose one thing and you will not have chosen the opposite.
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
If you choose to surrender the money, Allah knows that you will surrender the money. Whatever you decide at the last moment is what is known.
As I said, you will not choose both options. You willchoose one. And when you choose one, you will not have chosen the opposite. You say, "I chose option a, why shouldn't I choose option b?" You don't, because you were going to choose one of the options and you did. With your free will, you chose not to choose the other option.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Except that you aren't, and you can't be without violating Allah's sovereignty. This is basic islamic doctrine. You're not grasping the dilemma. You're just regurgitating Sunday School platitudes without understanding any of them. (Well, Friday School, I guess.)
Which matters only if there's some uncertainty to the outcome. A giant part of Islam is surrendering yourself to the will of Allah, because he has already decreed the outcome. Volition is more than just being unaware of or unconcerned with the futility of your predicament.
This is the conversation adults have. You're still stuck back in Baby's First Qu'ran.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You have no clue what free will actually means in philosophical discourse.
jrhowell
Muse
So God created person A knowing that he would do evil instead of creating person B who would always do good. But why? Did God always know that he was going to create person A? And knowing that ahead of time did God ever have any real choice in the matter?
Perhaps the answer to Emre’s paradox is that people have free will but God does not!
Perhaps the answer to Emre’s paradox is that people have free will but God does not!
My question is not about the future. Free will must exist in the present if it exists.
At the moment you find the money, before you've even had time to think about what to do, Allah knows what you will do. That is what you've claimed.
If you have free will, it must be possible for you to choose either way.
So we must consider the question of what happens if you choose differently than Allah knows. What happens then?
If you claim that outcome is not possible, that can only be because it is not possible for you to choose either way, which means you have no free will.
Allah's knowledge occurs first, right?
If Allah knows that I will surrender the money, will I choose to surrender the money?
I would like to support Emre in one respect: he is obviously following a Muslim sect, and not mainstream Islam. I think we should judge him by his own beliefs, and not blame him that his religion is different from that of other Muslims.
His beliefs are of course still wacky, but he should only have to defend his own beliefs, and not those of others.
His beliefs are of course still wacky, but he should only have to defend his own beliefs, and not those of others.
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
That's the point. So that both the good guys and the bad guys get what they deserve. And you can face yourself.
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
You will choose one of the two options with your free will. And God knows which one you will choose.
Last edited:
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Are you trying to tell us Allah knows your choice only after you make that choice? Because so do most of the people who are affected by that choice. So Allah is just some guy standing at the bus-stop who sees you pick up the wallet.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
No, He knows from the beginning. God is timeless. He does not travel in the past, future or present.
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
Of course. But of my own free will, I will choose the one that God knows.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This proposal has heart. But I'm not sure it's a distinction Emre would honor. A possible explanation for the difference between his doctrine and mainstream Islam is that he belongs to a minority sect. Another possible explanation is that he doesn't understand mainstream Islam very well. It should be up to Emre to tell us whether he intends to preach mainstream Islam or not.
I see a hierarchy of claims being made. Is religion better than secular philosophy? Is Islam an objectively true religion? Does Islam make more sense than Christianity and Judaism? Yes, we can certainly add the question whether Emre's formulation of Islam is the best of all. But insofar as Emre has not signaled any intent to separate his claims from those of mainstream Islam, then I think his errors in departing from it are fair game. If his claim that Islam makes a better show of explaining free will is based on misrepresenting Islamic teaching, then that's a legitimate part of the rebuttal.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
I would add that Emre is working against a language barrier (he is Turkish), and probably has not had a deep education including in Islamic thought. I suspected a while back that we are working with a classic Dunning-Kruger situation. He is simply not aware enough that he is making logical, philosophical and religious mistakes, and plows on regardless with his preaching believing he "definitely has the answers". Even his denial of the obvious when pointed out reinforces that case.JayUtah said:
So I do agree we should not show animosity to him personally.
Emre_1974tr
Graduate Poster
He knows.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
You speak as though you are Allah? And know what he knows?
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
But you JUST said that you can pick the option god did not think you would pick.
Can god ever be wrong?
If that is the case then your Allah is a piece of fetid mephitic cockroach feces... you are welcome to it and its stench.... tsk tsk tsk.
According to your statement Allah is a heinous sordid abject imbecile... he knows that what he is making is going to cause misery but he makes it still anyway... and then waits until the misery he knew will happen, takes place... and watches while the misery is occurring without lifting a finger to stop it... and then after the misery is over he still does nothing for eons while more misery he caused also takes place... and finally after all that misery,.. he ... the creator of all that misery... comes along and causes even more wretched misery with more hideous actions he does FOR ETERNITY.
According to your very own admission... your Allah is a voyeuristic sadistic monstrous rotten filth.
Let me ask you a question... what do you think should be done to an engineer who deliberately makes a machine he knows for sure before he makes it, that it is going to cripple its users when they use it??
What do you call a person who makes harmful things and sits and watches while people are getting harmed by the things he made?
What you are describing is a monstrous sadistic criminal... and you are calling this villain your Allah and trying to threaten us that unless we kiss his mephitic orifice like you, he will do further sadistic crimes on us for refusing to swallow the filth that you're peddling on behalf of this celestial brigand you are hawking.
Your Allah is nothing but a pathetic meaningless cesspool of disgusting filth and pernicious garbage... according to the propaganda you are pushing and proselytizing.
No one is falling for your 1400 years old desert feces that you are trying to peddle as your Allah...
If your Allah were real and he were not the sewage you are flushing out he would make you stop slandering his reputation the way you are.
So the fact that he is not stopping you from demonstrating how much of a disgusting fetid feces he is, is proof that he is indeed nothing more than a sadistic villainous scum... or he does not exist.
So thanks for persistently making sure that people understand that fact... but I am not sure you appreciate that this is all you are doing.
And it has now become extremely evident that you are trolling...
Last edited:
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Not so much trolling as out of his depth.
It does not matter whatsoever...
What matters is that the sadistic monstrous villain Allah knew that evil is going to happen and did nothing to stop it... and even worse... he made the evil person knowing full well that s/he is going to do evil that he will watch and not lift a finger to stave off.
Then Allah will do even more evil by torturing the instrument of evil he made and watched do evil and did nothing to stop it before or during or after the evil he knew will take place.
And if the victim of the evil doer that Allah made and did not stop and watched do his evil... if the victim curses the name of this fecal matter called Allah... then this turpitude called Allah will himself perform further evil on the poor soul FOR ETERNITY.... despite Allah being the cause of all the evil in the first place.
So according to the theology of the OP... his Allah is a pernicious DEMON and a heinous DEVIL and a hideous monstrous SADIST.
According to his theology... this Allah is a hideous monstrous licentious SADISTIC VOYEUR.
.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
True, and that's the general rule around here and the general goal of honest skepticism. I unmuted this thread out of boredom one day, and I will probably go back to ignoring it.
I'm going to ask the same question I asked Jabba.
Why do you want something that only works if it doesn't make sense to make sense?
I "get" religion. I don't get apologetics. Once you stop treating religion as something isn't expected to make sense and runs on dream logic it falls apart.
Jabba simply believed in souls, a belief that most, probably a majority still, of people believe. If he had just went "After I die my souls will keep living, that is what I believe" he would have been wrong but he wouldn't have been wrong in the same way as billions of people.
But not he had to pretend and die on the hill of his belief being some provable fact that made logic and sense and that's where all his insanity came from. He (or his online persona) couldn't just believe in something, they had to pretend it was some logical, rational decision they came to.
Same thing here. Why waste 63 pages and counting when you could just go pretending you need any other validation beyond "I believe it?"
If you're going to pretend a belief is some reasoned opinion or fact, you can't be this bad at it.
Why do you want something that only works if it doesn't make sense to make sense?
I "get" religion. I don't get apologetics. Once you stop treating religion as something isn't expected to make sense and runs on dream logic it falls apart.
Jabba simply believed in souls, a belief that most, probably a majority still, of people believe. If he had just went "After I die my souls will keep living, that is what I believe" he would have been wrong but he wouldn't have been wrong in the same way as billions of people.
But not he had to pretend and die on the hill of his belief being some provable fact that made logic and sense and that's where all his insanity came from. He (or his online persona) couldn't just believe in something, they had to pretend it was some logical, rational decision they came to.
Same thing here. Why waste 63 pages and counting when you could just go pretending you need any other validation beyond "I believe it?"
If you're going to pretend a belief is some reasoned opinion or fact, you can't be this bad at it.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I get the original apologetics. "Here's why I think the Qur'an precludes even limited volition," would be a good apologetic, because it's something we can reason about without needing to express a belief in the religion it comes from. And that's what happened back in the day. Even with Malleus malificarum you get to burn witches according to conclusions impeccably reasoned from a bunch of made-up superstition. But that ushered in an important difference between "I believe in X" and "You should believe in X." When the answer to the obvious retort, "Why should I?" stopped being stabbing you with a sword and started having reasoned answers, that's when the abuse of secular reasoning really became egregious and Dunningundkrügerisch.
Today we still get that. "You shouldn't let your children have gender-affirming medical treatments" is, for example, one of today's versions of stabbing you with a sword. It comes from, "Our holy book says you're born as the gender you are." That kind of apologetics can go jump in our rapidly-shrinking lake.
"You have free will in Religion X," is always a rip-roaring debate for most values of X. Mormonism gives you more of it than Catholicisim, which gives you more of it than Islam. But no matter how you fill in the blank, it really makes you think about the nature of religion and your responsibilities toward your fellow beings.
But the question that started it was, "The Qur'an does a better job of analyzing free will than everyone else." That can be answered secularly (in the negative), but the apologetics we're getting to support the statement is pure religious bunk. We have to believe in one person's formulation of God in Islam (and not the mainstream interpretation) for the statement to hold. That's no fun for skeptics.
In non-Emre Islam, how you continue to have enough free will to be judged for your sins while knowing all along that Allah predetermined your fate before he created you is more or less a mystery, but gets couched in the notion that you are completely oblivious to what that fate is ahead of time. Not very philosophically satisfying, and certainly not classical volition, but it's meant to placate Muslims and not infidels.
"Does a better job" in the sense of "formulates it as an unresolved dilemma and yells, 'Ta-da!'" is extremely unsatisfying, and apologetics that require that to be how we end the debate is nonsense. Dilemmas and tautologies are not reasoning, and reasoning is the heart of apologetics.
- Status